“Self defense against the initiation of force” is subject to many arguments. What constitutes the right to self defense against threats ? Being controlled is just as bad as being beat up or killed in my mind. Stopping this control is going to become unbelievably difficult in the near future. I’ll express my views soon on why the NAP will reduce or eliminate effectiveness in making gains towards freedom. Thanks to the founders of this forum for the opportunity to express such views.
Samm

Under the declaration “no one shall initiate force against another” which if agreed upon would remove ones ability to counter threats with violence. Do you believe that we need to restrain from using violence to counter threats regardless of how severe a threat might be ?
Samm

Knowing what I know now, if I had access to the original paper document I signed I would physically strike my signature from it. Over the years since I made my mark on it, I’ve realized that the words on it mean nothing in reality when trying to communicate commonly held ideas between a herd of cats. They will always arbitrarily redefine them to jive with their individualist beliefs, just like this thread is an example of.

I’ve realized that the words on it mean nothing in reality when trying to communicate commonly held ideas between a herd of cats. They will always arbitrarily redefine them to jive with their individualist beliefs,

This is true of anything you (or anyone) writes or says. Even silence will be self-defined by those who “hear” it. All that should matter is your understanding of the words at the time they are uttered.

Unless, of course, one’s talking about a contract or agreement, in which case all parties involved need to share an understanding. But the Shire Society Declaration is not a contract.

BTW, my prior comments in this thread had nothing to do with the Shire Society Declaration itself, but only with the portions of Sam’s comments that I quoted each time.

Yes, I do believe that responding to words with physical violence is immoral.

You are good at precise wording and explaining yourself as if it came from a book of law or something, Aahz.
Were you a prosecutor before grasping the truth ?
I like how you replaced “threat” with “words” in your above response. There are other expressed threats besides words. You already knew this right ? Thanks for the clear definition of “threat” as a statement of intent that can’t be defended against. I will say that threats can be “countered” instead.
Jay mentions that “they will always arbitrarily redefine them to jive with their individualist beliefs”. I hope all in the Shire will do just that. I recently listened to someone grill another on their beliefs in the NAP which made it sound much like propaganda. It reminded me to rescind.
Signing the declaration has nothing to do with finding good people here.
Samm

The non-aggression principle (or NAP; also called the non-aggression axiom, the anti-coercion, zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical stance that asserts that aggression is inherently wrong. In this context, "aggression" is defined as initiating or threatening any forcible interference with an individual or individual's property.
In contrast to pacifism, the non-aggression principle does not forbid forceful defense. The non-aggression principle is considered by some ...

Speaking is an action. No philosophy that precludes self-defense against actions will stand the rigors of time. Although, I believe that over-reacting to a threat or any other initiation of force is a new initiation, I think that issuing threats will fall out of style if someone gets punched in the mouth every time they threaten someone.

*Note, a threat is distinct from a warning. “Imma punch you in the eye” threat. “Imma punch you in the eye, if you come in my yard.” warning.

If you understand Kaczynski’s writings you’d understand that he was/is interested in not just “self” defense, but in defense of many. The most un-selfish man I have ever read about. I will ad: Rabbit Hunter Extraordinaire.
Samm

So, in other words, you have no evidence that anyone he harmed ever threatened or harmed him.

It’s humorous that you infer I don’t understand Kaczynski’s writings when you don’t seem familiar enough with them yourself to know that he admits his actions were both unjust and cruel and that he regrets having attacked innocent people.

The number of people on this forum willing to glorify an indiscriminate murderer appalls me.

The observable fact that there are people who say they’re willing to punish/kill others because they disagreed with what the person they’re attacking defined as “initiation of force” makes the whole concept of the NAP as some universal rule useless.